Author Topic: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?  (Read 21534 times)

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2028
  • Likes Given: 1492
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #160 on: 04/01/2017 01:37 AM »
Could this be the simplest lander concept? Something that puts the entire burden of propulsion shortfall on a propulsive stage?

Ahem.

Why place all the dV requirements for ascent/descent on the lander, and in doing so drive up the requirements on the lander significantly when an upper stage can do the work here?   A Xeus-Centaur is at least partly off the shelf, IVF is scheduled to be demo'd in 2018.  Investment in that area would have a much greater return IMO then trying to make a capsule perform a 2-way trip. 

Xeus-ACES might be 5+ off, but Xeus-Centaur could be much sooner.

Nope. Masten is tied up with XS-1. ULA is at a point they can't afford any distractions.

That's what I was getting at.

And why I didn't remark about your earlier comment was that it was too desperate to be believed.

It's not about being worthy, it's about having enough operational experience to bring this off. Masten doesn't.

There are four US in active use on the globe that can be made to have on orbit lifetimes of weeks. Could be modified for the thermal environment. Can't take this further.

One of the simpler ways of dealing with this could be creative use of PAM's, but it is so ridiculous one hesitates to bring it up. No contingencies at all too. Hinted at it earlier because they are still flight qualified for F9/FH.

Quote
Gets the Lunar Dragon concept at least to the point where with moderate increases in ISP (canted, partially expanded nozzles) and a large increase in prop meet the ascent requirements.
Yes.

They are most of the way there already if you simply trim the Dragon's mass budget - remember that the LM needed a 5 year diet to make it to Apollo 11 - even Apollo 10's LM was too heavy!

Quote
...., and SX/BO have nothing on the board for this "distraction".

Blue does have something on the board, bould be a fit:
http://spacenews.com/bezos-and-blue-origin-reportedly-pitch-amazon-like-delivery-for-the-moon/
Nope.

It's an empty ambition. Note he mentions cargo, not HSF crew.

BO's plate is full for the next five years. Note also the game has gone up with the recycling of fairings. There's a few more things to come. And he doesn't have a orbital crew capsule yet. Or a orbital capsule recovery system with precision landing.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2017 02:01 AM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline GWH

Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #161 on: 04/01/2017 04:28 PM »
Nope. Masten is tied up with XS-1. ULA is at a point they can't afford any distractions.

That's what I was getting at.

And why I didn't remark about your earlier comment was that it was too desperate to be believed.

It's not about being worthy, it's about having enough operational experience to bring this off. Masten doesn't.

There are four US in active use on the globe that can be made to have on orbit lifetimes of weeks. Could be modified for the thermal environment. Can't take this further.

My comment was hand-waving for sure. However even with $2B as you proposed on page 1 to one of the commercial crew providers there are still going to be significant schedule and personnel allocation challenges.  They all have full plates, so why draw the line at a crash program to modify an LEO capsule to a lunar lander vs a crash program to modify an US to a crasher stage?
Masten is probably too small I agree, however ULA is downsizing so one could argue that they have ALL the necessary resources other than funding.

BO's plate is full for the next five years. Note also the game has gone up with the recycling of fairings. There's a few more things to come. And he doesn't have a orbital crew capsule yet. Or a orbital capsule recovery system with precision landing.
Blue Origin didn't have a lot visible for a suborbital rocket and capsule, then one day it was flying.

Do you have any insider information on the progress of their biconic capsule?

I've tried researching that on the NASA CRS contracts and came up pretty empty, but that's typical for their level of secrecy.  I know they want to use a composite PV that has had assistance but most other support went to New Shep.
It isn't realistic to think that they have a complete crew vehicle all ready to go, however without knowing exact progress to date I don't think its fair for outright dismissal of something emerging in a 2-4 year time frame.

One of the simpler ways of dealing with this could be creative use of PAM's, but it is so ridiculous one hesitates to bring it up. No contingencies at all too. Hinted at it earlier because they are still flight qualified for F9/FH.

Please define PAM's?  Payload Abort Motors?
« Last Edit: 04/01/2017 04:32 PM by GWH »

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2028
  • Likes Given: 1492
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #162 on: 04/01/2017 07:05 PM »
They all have full plates, so why draw the line at a crash program to modify an LEO capsule to a lunar lander vs a crash program to modify an US to a crasher stage?
Agreed.

But the problem is ... what stages?

Quote
Masten is probably too small I agree, however ULA is downsizing so one could argue that they have ALL the necessary resources other than funding.
Nope.

Masten is not qualified for a lunar mission. They are qualified for a vertical, reusable LV. Remember, small startup companies have to have a really monomaniacal focus. Like ... XS-1.

Quote
BO's plate is full for the next five years. Note also the game has gone up with the recycling of fairings. There's a few more things to come. And he doesn't have a orbital crew capsule yet. Or a orbital capsule recovery system with precision landing.
Blue Origin didn't have a lot visible for a suborbital rocket and capsule, then one day it was flying.

Do you have any insider information on the progress of their biconic capsule?
Suggest that you notice how much of there agenda "moves along", in public.

For them to advance to a NS business, they've already said they need to launch weekly. They haven't been launching weekly.

For them to advance to orbital capsule, they need to finish/operate a NS capsule, to then "move on" to orbital capsule.

Note, that all NG provider business they've talked about is big geosats. They've only shown fairings on NG so far.

And the lunar reference is cargo only. All of this is consistent.

Suggest BO is attempting to play "catch up" with Musk on the reusable LV side (makes sense because he doesn't want Musk to dominate that market), and that HSF follows after that 2-3 year program.

Quote
I've tried researching that on the NASA CRS contracts and came up pretty empty, but that's typical for their level of secrecy.  I know they want to use a composite PV that has had assistance but most other support went to New Shep.
It isn't realistic to think that they have a complete crew vehicle all ready to go, however without knowing exact progress to date I don't think its fair for outright dismissal of something emerging in a 2-4 year time frame.

You can't hide an orbital HSF program. Trust me, the AF tried that and failed, with 25x Bezos resources.

He's not hiding an unmanned orbital program. You can look closely for the HSF parts and they are not there. Likely they will play catch up on the HSF part afterward.

Quote
One of the simpler ways of dealing with this could be creative use of PAM's, but it is so ridiculous one hesitates to bring it up. No contingencies at all too. Hinted at it earlier because they are still flight qualified for F9/FH.

Please define PAM's?  Payload Abort Motors?
Payload Assist Module's. Things like Star-48B's. You can find them in the Orbital ATK Propulsion Products Catalog

Offline GWH

Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #163 on: 04/01/2017 07:54 PM »
They all have full plates, so why draw the line at a crash program to modify an LEO capsule to a lunar lander vs a crash program to modify an US to a crasher stage?
Agreed.

But the problem is ... what stages?
...
Payload Assist Module's. Things like Star-48B's. You can find them in the Orbital ATK Propulsion Products Catalog

Ah yes, coming around full circle to earlier posts where I suggested Delta II US and Antares US (Castors)...
The required propellant mass needs to be at least 5000kg for ascent vehicle alone even using Dragon 2's engines for partial dV.  Some of the larger ATK motors may do it.  So the D2 can be used for initial lift off and final burn to orbit where the solid kick motor provides the majority of dV.

More of a cludge, but makes for less "upgrading" of each component. Keeping with pressure fed smallish canted nozzles for Dragon2 and existing or slightly enlarged tanks.

Offline GWH

Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #164 on: 04/04/2017 09:27 PM »
Boeing released a nice picture at least of a lander:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/849354407825338368/photo/1


Offline TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • CA
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #165 on: 04/04/2017 10:29 PM »
Boeing released a nice picture at least of a lander

No windows! Bummer!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7794
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2096
  • Likes Given: 4880
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #166 on: 04/04/2017 11:27 PM »
Needs an elevator...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12012
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2626
  • Likes Given: 378
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #167 on: 04/05/2017 12:20 PM »
No windows! Bummer!

The windows are on the other side.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #168 on: 04/05/2017 01:18 PM »
No windows! Bummer!

The windows are on the other side.

Two more images of this lander can be viewed here: http://xp4d.com/gallery.htm#!prettyPhoto

Select the 'Cis-Lunar Missions' tab, 4th row down.


Offline GWH

Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #170 on: 04/07/2017 03:11 AM »

Two more images of this lander can be viewed here: http://xp4d.com/gallery.htm#!prettyPhoto

Select the 'Cis-Lunar Missions' tab, 4th row down.

So what you are suggesting is this is just a graphic artists design and has no bearing on anything officially  related to Boeing?

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: Dragon 2 or Starliner derived dedicated lunar lander?
« Reply #171 on: 05/28/2017 12:26 AM »
Would be interesting to see a lunar lander design based on Rutherford engine.

Certainly the right scale for a manned lander.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags: